Sure. Notice that the "Correct Fix" on the left is "having a theory".
Concerning the remainder of the video: Maybe our times serve to raise the subconcious archetype of crisis, but really in natural science it is not a "crisis" to discover a phenomenon that looks non-random (non-generic). On the contrary, this is what drives science, and the left column of that table is a triumphal testimony of that.
One part of the hep community says that the LHC results reveal a "nightmare scenario" where nothing interesting is discovered; but when something interesting is discovered after all, the other part calls this a "crisis". Worse, these two parts of the community seem to have non-empty intersection. This smells of hysteria more than of sober scientific discourse.
The truth is that the LHC results both confirm established theory and at the same time show clearly and unambiguously a new physical effect that is not explained by established theory. That's really the dream scenario of natural science. Instead of rambling on about chance and likeliness, this should make the scientific community turn to its core task, which is to produce theories and iteratively improve on them.
Here we need a theory that explains why the vaccuum would sit on the verge of instabiity, but not beyond. I am aware of two good contestants:
One is maybe I) asymptotic safety, the other is II) any theory in which a) field moduli such as the Higgs potential are themselves dynamical and b) they are prevented from crossing into the realm of instability, by some principle or symmetry
About I) I wish the analysis of theory and data had been made more intelligibly, see #8, #20 above.
About II): This is the theory that people like Gordon Kane are pointing out (Kane 18, "Clue 4"). It may turn out wrong, but at least it is a theory. The sensible thing to do in science is to investigate this theory further and check if it holds water.
Or else come up with a better theory. But we do need to talk about theories and not get lost in informal handwaving about probabilities, likeliness, genericity. The universe is neither likely nor generic, instead it is exceptional in its existence and its properties. In the past natural science, in the modern guise of maths-based theoretical physics, has managed to understand to a large extent why this is so. There is no reason to give up on this success story now.
It is not far from logic that the following needs to be solved at the same time (or at least to ponder on them simultaneously):
1. Why is the Higgs mass and vev low for SM coupled to gravity.. Matt mentioned how it should be tuned to 1/10^-30 (Naturalness problem)
2. Hierarchy Problem (why are all particles not planck size mass)
3. Vacuum Metastability (why is the Higgs mass 125 GeV bordering on the edge of metastability
4. Cosmological Constant Problem (disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density and theoretical large value of ZPE suggested by QFT)
You mentioned the first 3 solutions to this thread. May I know what is your take on the 4th problem (cosmological constant problem) and possible solution and if there is (any) connection to the first 3 problems especially the vacuum metastability?
Do you have a single model that can explain all the 4? How many separate models must they need to at least to explain them? 2? 4?
Wiki last paragraphs on the cosmological constant problem is:
"In the case of the Higgs mechanism, the usual Higgs vacuum expectation value in the instant-form vacuum is replaced by a constant scalar background field - a "zero mode" with kμ=0. The phenomenological predictions are unchanged using the LF formalism. Since the Higgs zero mode has no energy or momentum density, it does not contribute to the cosmological constant.
The small non-zero value of the cosmological constant must then be attributed to other mechanisms; for example a slight curvature of the shape of the universe (which is not excluded within 0.4% (as of 2017)) could modify the Higgs field zero-mode, thereby possibly producing a non-zero contribution to the cosmological constant."
Could there be one model or solution to all of them at same time? It's weird they come in company.. maybe they have a common source or origin.